Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08, 34179/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 7 - Pas de peine sans loi (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege Rétroactivité) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKTOUF AND DAMJANOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege Retroactivity) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKTOUF AND DAMJANOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)
[DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty;Retroactivity);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Besprechungen u.ä.
- zis-online.com (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Nullum crimen sine lege praevia: Das Rückwirkungsverbot des Art. 7 EMRK vor dem EGMR im Fall Maktouf und Damjanovic gegen Bosnien und Herzegowina (Dr. Vojislav Damnjanovic; ZIS 2014, 629)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
[12.12.2012]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08, 34179/08
- EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 2312/08
Wird zitiert von ... (22) Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 51891/99
NALETILIC contre la CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
On 4 May 2000 the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision in the case of Naletilic v. the Republic of Croatia (no. 51891/99).First, the Government claimed that Article 7 § 2 of the Convention provided an exception to the rule of non-retroactivity of crimes and punishments set out in Article 7 § 1 (they referred to Naletilic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 51891/99, ECHR 2000-V).
- EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96
Schießbefehl
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
They further submitted that their case should be distinguished from the cases to which the Government and the third party had referred (namely S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, ECHR 2001-II).Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 85, ECHR 2001-II (extracts); Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 101-109, 12 July 2007; and Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 69-71, 19 September 2008).".
- EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06
SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
The same term, discrimination, is also used in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. Notwithstanding the difference in scope between those provisions, the meaning of this term in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was intended to be identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009).
- EKMR, 20.07.1957 - 268/57
X. c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
In spite of the opposition, the provision was adopted in both the ICCPR and the ECHR, with the specific purpose of safeguarding the post-Second World War trials (Travaux Preparatoires de la CEDH, volume III, pp. 163, 193 and 263, and, subsequently, X. v. Belgium, no. 268/57, Commission decision of 20 July 1957, Yearbook 1, p. 241, and Kononov v. Latvia (GC), no. 36376/04, § 186, 17 May 2010). - EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 13113/03
OULD DAH c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
Lastly, while the Court in principle agrees with the Government that States are free to decide their own penal policy (see Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-IV, and Ould Dah v. France (dec.), no. 13113/03, ECHR 2009), they must comply with the requirements of Article 7 in doing so. - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 29295/95
ECER ET ZEYREK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
Since it is not certain that the applicants would indeed have received lower sentences had the 1976 Code been applied (contrast Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, ECHR 2001-II, and Scoppola, cited above), the Court holds in the particular circumstances of this case that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. - EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 15917/89
JAMIL v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
It thus cannot be said with any certainty that either applicant would have received lower sentences had the former Code been applied (contrast Jamil v. France, 8 June 1995, Series A no. 317-B; Gabarri Moreno v. Spain, no. 68066/01, 22 July 2003; Scoppola, cited above). - EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
By way of general observation, the Court reiterates that in determining in previous cases whether a body could be considered as "independent" - notably of the executive and of the parties to the case - it has had regard to such factors as the manner of appointment of its members, the duration of their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence (see, for example, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 78, Series A no. 80, and Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, § 38, ECHR 2005-II). - EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 36357/04
BERIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
36357/04 et al., ECHR 2007-XII). - EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 31001/03
FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01
Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92
S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 22.10.1984 - 8790/79
Sramek ./. Österreich
- VG Wiesbaden, 28.03.2019 - 6 K 1016/15
Die Vorlage dient der Klärung, ob der Petitionsausschuss des Hessischen Landtages …
Bezüglich der Unabhängigkeit ist jedoch auch die Art und Weise der Bestellung der Mitglieder eines Gerichtes zu berücksichtigen (u. a. werden berücksichtigt die Art und Weise der Bestellung der Mitglieder des Gerichts, die Dauer ihres Mandats oder ihre Unabsetzbarkeit, vgl. insoweit insbesondere EGMR, 18. Juli 2013, Maktouf und Damjanovic/Bosnien-Herzegowina, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0718JUD000231208). - EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert
The Court requires itemised bills and invoices that are sufficiently detailed to enable it to determine to what extent the above requirements have been met (see Maktouf and Damjanovi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.05.2017 - C-64/16
Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. …
85 U. a. werden berücksichtigt die Art und Weise der Bestellung der Mitglieder des Gerichts, die Dauer ihres Mandats oder ihre Unabsetzbarkeit (vgl. insbesondere EGMR, 18. Juli 2013, Maktouf und Damjanovic/Bosnien-Herzegowina, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0718JUD000231208, § 49).87 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 18. Juli 2013, Maktouf und Damjanovic/Bosnien-Herzegowina (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0718JUD000231208, § 49).
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 59552/08
ROHLENA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Au vu de ce qui précède, la Cour constate que la notion d'infraction pénale continuée est une solution législative et judiciaire communément retenue qui non seulement permet de réprimer certains agissements particuliers mais vise précisément à appliquer des règles plus clémentes de fixation des peines (voir, à titre de comparaison, l'arrêt Maktouf et Damjanovic c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], nos 2312/08 et 34179/08, § 70, CEDH 2013 (extraits)).Sur le principe de légalité en droit international des droits de l'homme, voir mon opinion séparée jointe à l'arrêt Maktouf et Damjanovic c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, nos 2312/08 et 34179/08, CEDH 2013.
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 35343/05
VASILIAUSKAS c. LITUANIE
2312/08 and 34179/08, § 66, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). - EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV and Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).Interestingly enough, this conclusion, on the basis of which the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been dismissed, does not refer to any other case of the Court (the references, in paragraph 47, to Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV) and Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013) and, in paragraph 48, to S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008) and Söderman v. Sweden ([GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013) pertain to other aspects of the admissibility of the application than the one relating to the constitutional complaint; by the way, the United Kingdom and Sweden, the respondent States in the last two cases, do not have a constitutional complaint system).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.07.2017 - C-574/15
Scialdone - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Mehrwertsteuer - Richtlinie 2006/112/EG …
Eine weiter gehende Auffassung des Grundsatzes wurde jedoch im zustimmenden Sondervotum von Richter Pinto de Albuquerque mit Zustimmung von Richter Vucinic im Urteil der Großen Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte vom 18. Juli 2013, Maktouf und Damjanovic/Bosnien-Herzegowina (CE:ECHR:2013:0718JUD000231208), vertreten. - EGMR, 12.03.2014 - 26828/06
KURIC ET AUTRES c. SLOVÉNIE
According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). - EuGH, 16.06.2021 - C-456/20
Crédit agricole/ EZB
Denn es folge aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschrechte, dass der Richter, wenn das zum Zeitpunkt der Begehung der Straftat geltende Strafgesetz und spätere, vor Ergehen eines endgültigen Urteils erlassene Strafgesetze voneinander abwichen, dasjenige Gesetz anwenden müsse, dessen Bestimmungen für den Angeklagten günstigster seien (EGMR, 18. Juli 2013, Maktouf und Damjanovic/Bosnien-Herzegowina, ECHR:2013:0718JUD000231208, § 65). - EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07
BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court requires itemised bills and invoices that are sufficiently detailed to enable it to determine to what extent the above requirements have been met (see Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). - EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 8927/11
RUBAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06
TSVETELIN PETKOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10
VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07
APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 19356/07
SHIOSHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21838/10
STEFANETTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 6830/08
BUECHEL c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 29620/05
SEREMET v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 50408/15
VERES AND KOCJANCIC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 43331/09
CHAKKAS AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 76807/11
KONSTANTINOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 36522/15
LE LIEVRE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 2312/08, 34179/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC CONTRE LA BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKTOUF AND DAMJANOVIC AGAINST BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
- EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 2312/08, 34179/08